COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-09-213-CV
SHEZAD MALIK APPELLANT
V.
THOMAS SLONE AND APPELLEES
MICHAEL MEYER
------------
FROM THE 96TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
Appellant Shezad Malik attempts to appeal from the trial court’s May 22,
2009 interlocutory order, which granted the Appellees’ motion to disqualify
him. On July 24, 2009, we sent Malik a letter stating our concern that we may
have no jurisdiction over this appeal because the order does not appear to be
a final appealable order or judgment, nor does it appear to be an appealable
interlocutory order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)
1
… See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
(Vernon 2008) (listing appealable interlocutory orders); Lehmann v. Har-Con
Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (providing general rule that an appeal
may be taken only from a final judgment). We indicated that this court would
dismiss this appeal if we did not receive a response showing grounds for
continuing the appeal by August 3, 2009. Malik filed a timely response,
acknowledging that there is no interlocutory appeal available from the May 22,
2009 interlocutory order disposing of the disqualification motion.
Accordingly, because the order is neither a final judgment nor an
appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.2
See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
SUE WALKER
JUSTICE
PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DELIVERED: August 20, 2009
2
… Malik, in his response, requests a writ of mandamus. Because his
response does not comply with the requisites for a petition for writ of
mandamus, we have sent a noncompliance letter. Should Malik file a compliant
petition for writ of mandamus, that petition will be filed in a separate cause
number. This opinion addresses and finally disposes of the interlocutory appeal
only.
2